JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Heard Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Chokkapu Neela Achyuth, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ravi Teja, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tanushree Bose, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Challenging the interim order, dated 07.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.28501 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/respondent No.4, preferred the present intra Court Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Facts:- 3. IDBI Bank Limited, secured Creditor had filed a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Aster Private Limited, Company in Liquidation vide CP (IB) No.199/7/HDB/2019 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (NCLT). During the pendency of the said petition, respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 vide I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in CP (I.B) No.199/7/HDB/2019, seeking cancellation of e-auction conducted, dated 28.08.2025 by respondent No.3 and conduct a fresh auction by permitting it to participate. The learned NCLT, adjourned the said I.A. to 29.10.2025. 4. During the pendency of the said interlocutory application, respondent No.1 had filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28501 of 2025 to declare the action of respondent No.3 herein (Liquidator governed by IBBI and appointed by the learned NCLT) in proceeding with the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025, seeking to sell Aster Private Limited as a going concern with residual assets, without permitting respondent No.1 herein to participate in the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, consequently direct respondent No.3 to re-conduct the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 by permitting respondent No.1 to participate in the e-auction. 5. The said Writ Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 18.09.2025, on which date, the learned Single Judge, had ordered notice and personal notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein through email and WhatsApp communication with an observation that the confirmation of auction sale by respondent No. 2 therein in favour of respondent No.4 therein pursuant to e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 shall be subject to further orders of the Court. Learned Single Judge directed to list the matter to 25.09.2025 in ‘Motion List’. 6. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition came up for hearing again on 07.10.2025, on which date, the learned Single Judge had passed the following order:- “Heard Mr. Learned Single Judge directed to list the matter to 25.09.2025 in ‘Motion List’. 6. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition came up for hearing again on 07.10.2025, on which date, the learned Single Judge had passed the following order:- “Heard Mr. E. Narender Naik, learned counsel, representing Ms.Tanushree Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Bharati JVL, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Liquidator, and Mr. Marnidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel fo' respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 have taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that l.A.Nos.1480 and 1481 of 2025 have been filed by the petitioner under Section 60 (5) of the lnsolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 before National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad (NCLT) – respondent No.1 seeking the same relief sought in this writ petition. Thus, having availed alternate remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue this writ petition. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no regular Bench in I CLT Court No.l where the aforesaid lAs' are listed. The regular Judicial and Technical members have not been appointed and the office is lying vacant since March 2025. The matters are being heard on ad hoc basis by the in-charge members from the NCLT, Mumbai and the NCLT, Guwahati. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that even regular matters are being taken by ad hoc Bench of NCLT Court No.1. Such contention is rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner and he submitted that the matters are taken up only for an hour every day, but regular hearing is not conducted. ln the circumstances, status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained by all parties in respect of the auctioned property, pending consideration of the applications in l.A. Nos.1480 and 1481 of 2025 before the NCLT. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 stated that the matter coming up for hearing on 29.10.2025 before the NCLT. Hence, all the parties are directed to cooperate for hearing of matter on that day. The counsel for respondent No.4 is at liberty to make request to NCLT to hear the matter finally. The parties are also at liberty to raise all legal and factual contentions before the NCLT in support of their case. List the matter on 11.11.2025.” 7. Hence, all the parties are directed to cooperate for hearing of matter on that day. The counsel for respondent No.4 is at liberty to make request to NCLT to hear the matter finally. The parties are also at liberty to raise all legal and factual contentions before the NCLT in support of their case. List the matter on 11.11.2025.” 7. Challenging the sid interim order dated 07.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.28501 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/respondent No.4 had preferred the present intra Court Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 8. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would contend that the present Appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and entertainable. He further contended that the learned Single Judge had recorded the factual aspects, more particularly, the fact that the matters are being heard on ad hoc basis by the in-charge members from the NCLT, Mumbai and the NCLT, Guwahati. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. 9. Reliance was also placed on Regulation 11 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which is as under. “If required, the liquidator may conduct multiple rounds of auctions to maximize the realization from the sale of the assets, and to promote the best interst of the creditors. (11A) Where the liquidator rejects the highest bid in an auction process, he shall intimate the reasons for such rejection to the highest bidder and mention it in the next progress report.” 10. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that respondent No.3 is in haste in conducting the auction. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order, dated 07.10.2025 in W.P.No.28501 of 2025 learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo. 11. Whereas, Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.4, would submit that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. Respondent No.1 had already filed I.A.No.1480 of 2025 under Section 60 (5) of IBC to set aside the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 and the very relief was sought in the aforesaid Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28501 of 2025. Writ Petitioner cannot pursue parallel remedies. Therefore, the aforesaid Writ Petition is not maintainable. Though a specific contention was raised with regard to maintainability of Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect. Writ Petitioner cannot pursue parallel remedies. Therefore, the aforesaid Writ Petition is not maintainable. Though a specific contention was raised with regard to maintainability of Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect. In fact, the impugned order is affecting the rights of the parties including the appellant and respondent No.3. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 adopted the said submissions of the appellant and that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to note that the IDBI Bank Limited had filed a petition against the M/S. Aster Private Limited. The said petition was admitted and the NCLT appointed the Liquidator to take over the assets and liabilities of the said Company, sell the assets and clear the debts of the Company in Liquidation. The Liquidator had conducted e-auction on 28.08.2025. Consequently, respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 60 (5) of the IBC vide I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in the said petition, to cancel the said e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 conducted by respondent No.3 and also for consequential direction to respondent No.3 and for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 herein to conduct fresh e-auction by permitting respondent No.1 to participate. Pleadings have been completed in the I.A and it was posted to 29.05.2025. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 herein had filed the aforesaid Writ Petition seeking the very same relief, as sought in the aforesaid I.A.No.1480 of 2025. The said Writ Petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 18.09.2025, on which date, the learned Single Judged had ordered notice and personal notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein through email and WhatsApp communication. The learned Single Judge also observed that confirmation of auction sale by respondent No.2 therein in favour of respondent No.4 therein/appellant herein pursuant to e-auction shall be subject to further orders of the Court in the said writ petition and directed to list the said Writ Petition on 25.09.2025. 14. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant herein had filed counter in W.P.No.28501 of 2025 on 07.10.2025 and pleadings are complete. 15. Thus, aforesaid aspects would reveal that respondent No.1/petitioner has been pursuing his remedies before the NCLT vide I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in CP (I.B) No.199/7/HDB/2019 and the aforesaid Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28501 of 2025 before this Court parallely. 16. 15. Thus, aforesaid aspects would reveal that respondent No.1/petitioner has been pursuing his remedies before the NCLT vide I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in CP (I.B) No.199/7/HDB/2019 and the aforesaid Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28501 of 2025 before this Court parallely. 16. As discussed supra, vide order, dated 18.09.2025, the learned Single Judge made it clear that the confirmation of auction conducted by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 therein pursuant to e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Even then, respondent No.1 after passing of the impugned order, contended that the in-charge members from NCLT, Mumbai, NCLT, Guwahati are conducting herein on ad hoc basis and obtained the impugned order under appeal. 17. It is only in dispute that there is no regular Bench in NCLT, Hyderabad. The In-Charge members from NCLT, Mumbai and NCLT, Guwahati are conducting hearing virtually. If, Respondent No.1 is aggrieved by the auction of NCLT, Bench-I, Hyderabad, in not taking up and dispose of the said I.A, he has to take steps in accordance with law. He cannot file the aforesaid Writ Petition with the same relief and pursue parallel remedies. It is impermissible. 18. In view of the observation made by the learned Single Judge on 18.09.2025 in the said Writ Petition that the confirmation of auction sale by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 therein pursuant to action, dated 28.08.2025 shall be subject to further orders of this Court, Respondent No.1/ writ petitioner ought not to have pressed for interim order and the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted interim order on 07.10.2025. 19. It is opt to note that pleadings in the said Writ Petition are complete. 20. As discussed supra, the appellant herein and respondent No.3 herein specifically contended that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable, since respondent No.1 is pursuing remedies before NCLT. The learned Single Judge recorded the said contentions of both the appellant and respondent No.3 herein and even then directed the parties to maintain status quo on the ground that the matters are being heard on ad hoc basi by the in-charge members of NCLT, Mumbai and NCLT, Guwahati. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects. 21. As discussed supra Mr. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects. 21. As discussed supra Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the present Writ Appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned is as interim order and it is not affecting rights of the parties. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court. 22. In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank. Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1 . In para 384, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The litigants cannot wait for judicial impact assessment and action by the Government which may or may not take place. Experience has shown that the judgments right from L. Chandra Kumar to Madras Bar Association, 2010 have not been complied with by the Union in letter and spirit. Citizens of this country cannot be denied justice which is the first promise made in the Preamble. Therefore, I am of the view that in whichever State/Union Territory the bench of a particular tribunal is not established of functioning, the litigants of that State will have a right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal of their grievances. They cannot be expected to go to far off distant places and spend huge amounts of money, much beyond their means to ventilate their grievances. The alternative remedy of approaching a tribunal is an illusory remedy and not an efficacious alternative remedy. The self-imposed bar or restraint of an alternative efficacious remedy would not apply. Such litigants are entitled to file petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India before the jurisdictional high Court. In L. Chandra Kumar it was clearly held that the right of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and this right may be interpreted in a manner that it is truly available to the litigants and should not be an illusory right.” 23. In L. Chandra Kumar it was clearly held that the right of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and this right may be interpreted in a manner that it is truly available to the litigants and should not be an illusory right.” 23. In S. Kiran Kumar v. 786 Garden Function Hall , 2023 SCC OnLine TS 239 wherein an order passed by learned Single Judge issuing notice before admission while permitting the Counsel for writ petition to take out personal notice was under challenge and, therefore, considering the fact that the said order does not affect the rights of the parties, a Division Bench of this Court held that Inter-Court Appeal filed by the appellant therein against the said order under Clause - 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable. Whereas, in the present case, the facts are different and by virtue of the impugned order the rights of the parties are affected. 24. In Deshireddy Jyothi v. Nallapati Prameela, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 292 the appellant therein preferred an appeal challenging an ex parte interim order, and on examination of the facts therein, A Division Bench held that it is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause - 15 of the Letters Patent. Intra-Court Appeal filed against the said order is not maintainable. However, the Division Bench granted liberty to the parties to seek vacation of the said interim order. But, the facts in the present case are different to the facts of the said case. 25. In K.E. Sthalasai v. Kancherla Venkata Ramana, W.A. Nos. 338 & 697 of 2024 decided on 27.02.2025 a Division Bench of this Court considered the principle laid down by the Apex Court and Division Benches of this Court with regard to maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal filed under Clause – 15 of the Letters Patent. 26. In The University of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (PO), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain , 2013 SCC OnLine AP 342 , a Division Bench of this Court considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it provides an appeal from a ‘judgment’ of single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. In The University of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (PO), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain , 2013 SCC OnLine AP 342 , a Division Bench of this Court considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it provides an appeal from a ‘judgment’ of single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The previous judgment of a Division Bench in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, 1981 AIR 1786 was considered and it was held that ‘orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not ‘judgments’ for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letter Patent’. Categories (iv) and (v) read thus: (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.” 27. Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under: “At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of the parties and only passed interlocutory orders and hence in our considered view the same does not satisfy the trappings of the judgments as defined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the said observation.” (Emphasis Supplied) 28. In Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399 the Apex Court held as under: “15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 16. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 16. The term “judgment” occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, “judgments” for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not “judgments” for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.” (Emphasis Supplied) 29. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in Shyam Sel And Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282 took a similar view. 30. The Apex Court laid down the litmus test to determine whether order impugned is a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent. If the present matter is examined on the anvil of said principles, it will be clear that (i) by impugned order the learned Single Judge has not finally decided the question or issue in controversy in the main case, (ii) the impugned order has not decided any issue which materially or directly affects final decision in the Writ Petitions, (iii) the impugned order does not have any impact on a collateral issue or question which was not subject matter of main case. 31. In the aforesaid case, vide order impugned therein, learned Single Judge directed the Principal Secretary, Endowments, to constitute a Committee and submit report. On consideration of the facts, learned Division Bench disposed of the said writ appeals observing that learned Single Judge before touching upon merits of the case will deal with maintainability of the writ petitions by taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in Srivari Daada v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam , SLA (C) No. 6554 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021 . The said principle was also reiterated in the judgment dated 02.05.2025 in W.A. No.530 of 2025. 32. In the light of the above principle, in the present case, learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo, which according to us, affects the rights of the parties. At the first place, respondent No.1-writ petitioner cannot pursue parallel remedies and seek same relief in I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in CP (I.B) No.199/7/HDB/2019 and in W.P.No.28501 of 2025. In the second place, considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the auction is subject to the result of the Writ Petition, he ought not to have pursued the learned Single Judge to pass interim order, which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal. Thirdly, respondent No.1 should have requested the learned Single Judge to hear and dispose of the Writ Petition itself considering the fact that pleadings in the Writ Petition are complete. Fourthly, he should have taken steps for expeditious disposal of the said I.A.No.1480 of 2025 by the NCLT. 33. Learned Single Judge without considering the said aspects directed the parties to maintain status quo, which definitely affected the rights of the parties. 34. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal filed by the appellant herein/respondent No.4 is maintainable. This Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order, dated 07.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.28501 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.28501 of 2025 in accordance with law. However, liberty is granted to respondent No.1, the appellant and respondent No.3 to request the learned Single Judge to decide the Writ Petition, as expeditiously as possible and it is for the learned Single Judge to consider the said request. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.